I’ve been doing a lot of soul-searching lately in regards to my view on church. Some things I feel have been reinforced, yet some things have been re-shaped. As I posted last week here, I do believe that there is a division between the attractional church model vs missional communities. The basis for which they are founded are too distinct for it to be any other way:
- Attractional Church- Focuses most of its energy and resources on the weekend worship services. The belief is that if people come to the service that they can come to know Christ through everyone singing worship songs, hearing teachings from the Bible and connecting with Christians in a safe, anonymous setting.
Missional Church: Is really outwardly focused in every sense. To be missional is to live out one’s faith every day and to do so in surroundings that aren’t necessarily comfortable. The resources of the church are aimed at connecting with people where they are–rather than attracting them to a service–and forming community with them regardless of whether they are Christians. The heartbeat is to serve others outside of the existing church.
There are a lot of unresolved (and some unrecognized) issues within the church whether it be attractional or missional. Rather than make it solely an issue of how we do church, I think it’s best if we look at how we can combine both aspects of these two church models into one harmonious effort to reach people with the love and truth of Christ and how he desires to be known in our communities. Instead of trying to analyze why attractional churches are for baby boomer Christians and missional communities are the next wave of postmodern church, or why missional communities don’t honor God because they are too small and have questionable theology, we should be looking at how we can open our minds to a shift in the traditions of the contemporary church and reach across the aisle to find some common ground.
Most of this debate has actually been initiated by the Reveal study done by Willow Creek Church a few years ago. Bill Hybels looked at how effective Willow Creek was in discipling people rather than attracting an audience of Christians. It turns out they weren’t as effective as they thought after reviewing the results of a comprehensive survey they gave to their members. To them it was obvious that being fully attractional as a church led to shortcomings in the area of discipleship. However, megachurches such as Willow Creek can’t make a drastic shift in their philosophy and revamp as a new entity a week later. They need to chart a course and be purposeful in taking the people they want to disciple (rather than lose them to other churches that cater to their needs rather than commit to doing more). Therefore, the attractional church can look to be more missional, even though they may never be fully missional.
A (perceived) negative factor for missional churches is that being fully missional generally means being very small and uber organic. It lacks structure and is always in a state of transition. As the goal isn’t to convert people, but rather to share Christ’s love and believe that Christ will transform their lives at the appointed time even if it’s not while they are a part of the missional community, it’s hard to see steady growth within this model. Most missional communities do incorporate worship services of some sort, and we all know how difficult it can be to build momentum for our work in Christ when the gatherings are small.
In essence, as I look at both the attractional and missional church model I see room for improvement in both. I do not want to deny the great work done through both church models if they deem themselves successful being fully attractional or fully missional. However, regardless of how one wants to convey this idea, I do think in reality that the attractional church does lack in areas of discipleship and engagement. In contrast, I think that missional churches tend to look away from certain attractional elements that could help them build momentum and see change come about. In the end, should it be about what we think has worked well for us so far or should it be how can we work together for the sake of keeping the mission of Christ relevant to the eyes of the world and culture in a post-Christian, post-Church America? What worked for the past 20 years and seems to be working today may not be what the church will look like as soon as next year. There are shifts going on in the church–some due to economic influences, some due to cultural influences–that should cause us in church leadership to be open to changes in the future. We should be active rather than reactive. We should lead culture rather than be led by it. What we as the church do in the next 5-10 years will have a huge impact on how people live lives of faith and how they choose to express that faith.
Imagine the possibilities if instead of professing our alignment with guys like Bill Hybels or Rick Warren vs Dan Kimball or Alan Hirsch, we chose to profess our alignment with the mission of Christ in the 21st century. It’s easy to choose sides and engage in debate, but ultimately the case usually comes down to meeting somewhere in the middle; taking things from history and re-creating them to make them better today. This is where I will do my best to position myself moving forward–less divisive and more about building bridges. I sense that not many people will take this middle ground today as I do, but I do believe that 10 years from now we will be talking about churches that have elements of being attractional and missional as more normative rather than one model winning out over the other one.
If you’re part of an attractional church that is going through the process of trying to become more missional, please share your story. If you’re a missional community now looking at ways you can be more attractional and connect with people more in corporate worship, please share your story. Any thoughts on this are welcome.
Related posts:
Dave, You’re hitting upon a tension which I believe many church planters believe is a critical fork in the road for them. It is great to be aware of the dialectic in this issue.
Have you read Leonard Sweet’s text on his M.R.I. framework? *Missional*Relational*Incarnational*
http://godvertiser.com/2009/04/18/your-church-needs-the-full-mri/
Perhaps your answer can be found in not being forced into this mode of thought which divides the two into opposite directions to take, but rather reframing the question entirely. You might find yourself heading in a completely different direction…
Kenny, I sense most church planters would be looking more towards one model as they move forward, either launching large and attractional or small and relational. You may know more about this than me though. My thought is that many attractional churches are interested in becoming more missional, yet not sure how that will play out as it is a new philosophy of ministry.
Thanks for the link to Sweet’s insight!
Dave,
Great post (both of them).
I do think we need to see a mix of these two models. When we launched Bikers’ Church (8 years ago), we truly wanted to be missional at our very core. The bulk of our time and energy was building community within the motorcycle community.
And yet, it was the unchurched bikers who pushed for a focused gathering. When we launched our Thursday night service, 90% of our initial group were unchurched.
Today, we find balance in our focus. We have a strong gathering on Thursday nights, but we also recognize that if we had to shut down that gathering, we could still exist as a community through the missional dna we have at our core.
I look forward to the comments on your posts.
Rev Rob, great to have you share your story here! You are one of those pioneering type ministers that came from a more corporate, attractional church to then go into a missional focus with a people group that were in the margins of the community for unknown reasons. I appreciate following your journey at Biker’s Church and seeing God move in new ways and share his love to people that deserve it even more than most of us.
This reminds me of a debate I wrestled with many years ago if worship should be music focused or heart focused. Two different ends which people try to find a happy medium. God’s conclusion was, pursue musical excellence and give your whole heart. We as a church focus on our weekend services, then focus on the surrounding community during the week. Why settle for one or the other?
Sambi, thanks for your insight with reference to worship music in the church. There is tension in many more things other than just being attractional or missional. At the core of the philosophy of the church I think people want to settle for one or the other. I was one of those people. However, blending things together in harmony with God’s moving in his kingdom will cause us to be more open minded about the church and how we can be relevant in this post-Christian age in America. Like you, I say why settle for one or the other? Thanks Sambi!
Hello again Dave! Yeah, I believe we can strive for both attraction and mission. You’ve visited Encounter and you know that we are very driven by community; within our congregation and in Burbank. It drives who we are and a lot of what we do.
We’ve primarily focused on mission, and will continue to do so, but we also feel a responsibility provide a main gathering that honors God and meets needs that aren’t met in smaller settings.
As I mentioned in the last post, I’m not convinced that the two models have to be contradictory.
Peace
Josh, I’m hopeful that somehow a blending of these two models can work rather than seeing churches strive to be one or the other. In the truest sense of being attractional or missional, I don’t see how they can be unified, but when we remove the labels and just make it about gathering together as community and also going out into the community as a lifestyle I can see it working for greater good of the kingdom.
I enjoy seeing all that is happening with Encounter Assembly as you strive to be more missional daily in the community of Burbank, CA.
Dave,
My feeling is that both could and should coexist. Why can’t you do both? Look at “Servolution” as a good example of this, I think the guys’ name is Rizzo in New Orleans. Does a great service but also does great serving. The idea of them being separate is where I think we have erred. Why does it have to be one or the other; why can’t it be both? Just curious?
This is what we are striving for at Legacy, and thus far it has been a doable thing. We are foregoing our church service this Sunday to go and BE THE CHURCH by serving in the community versus causing potential spiritual constipation in a dead church. If the church is to survive in America at least, I think we MUST put feet and action to our faith and belief.
These are just my initial thoughts on this. Good stuff man! Thanks!
IHL,
Richie
Richie, the Servolution project from Healing Place Church in Louisiana is definitely a great thing! I would still consider HPC an attractional church with missional aspects. They’re focus is still on Sundays and I know it works well for them. To see something Servolution be a part of who we are everyday as the church would truly bring heaven to earth. Hoping one day we’ll be able to see that happen. Thanks Richie!
My take and experience says that eventually pure missional is not realistic. My take.
It goes back to what Rob said. We see that at our church. The away from God and out of church people reached by our mission work like tutoring and medical needs actually expect and want a very attractional church experience when they come back to Christ.
It often connects them to a place and time when they were close to God. They are not looking for what people call a missional experience in my neck of the woods. We find we can remove barriers with mission but they still need to be attracted.
I must say this. Our mission attitude can be a deterrent to already believers but that is a different discussion.
Darin, I would say that being purely missional is sustainable, but on a small scale and with a lot of continual hard work. I don’t believe that as Christians mature they need a more attractional setting…I sense that church culture has allowed this mindset to thrive. It’s why through projects such as the Reveal study done by Willow Creek that we can find that maturing Christians in an attractional setting on Sundays aren’t necessarily being discipled well. In other words, not much action coincides with their faith, nor are they being equipped to share that faith. It becomes too easy to just invite people to church, rather than explain why they should go.
However, I do agree that the context can be different in various communities and also that what I as a Christian may want or see as beneficial may not be the same as another Christian. I do believe though that we must move towards some balance of being missional with a somewhat attractional setting in a less-consumeristic mindset in order to be a church that reaches many in the future. By adhering strictly to either an attractional or missional model we lose too many people along the way that in turn are losing faith in the church.